Asain Carp Update

[Woodland Rivers]

Hello, Metro West Steelheaders Friends.

This is to give you an update on information regarding the efforts to keep asian carp from entering the Great Lakes in the Chicago area.

The issue is of great interest to Club members...and they are taking action. At the Club meeting last week, members signed over 150 letters to their U.S. Congressional delegation stating the need for urgent action to prevent the fish from bypassing the electric barrier via the Des Plaines River. Since then, MWS President Jim Robertson has added another 75 letters he collected from his friends and neighbors. I personally hand-delivered (too many to fax) the Club's letters to Senator Levin's office yesterday in downtown Detroit, and got some face time with a staff member. She was aware of the asian carp problem...but unaware of the Des Plaines River urgent situtation. She said she would talk to the DC office about it, I will let you know if I hear further back from that. The rest of our letters were faxed to the appropriate Congressional offices.

The Club's views on the importance of keeping the carp out of the Great Lakes got more visibility yesterday. Jim Robertson and I attended the WWJ Radio breakfast meeting about the "Blue Economy" and the role the state's abundant water supply could play in Michigan's economic recovery. Over an hour into the meeting, and not a single person on the expert panel had yet talked about the economic impact of Great Lakes fishing/boating/charters/recreation/tourism. Jim raised the issue in a question from the floor in a very passionate way, and it provided a timely input into the discusson.

The report from Marc Gaden at Great Lakes Fisheries Commission (GLRC) below provides some further detail about the efforts of state and federal agencies to respond to the situation on the Chicago & Des Plaines Rivers.

Also, I inquired about what the State of Michigan is doing to help deal with the issue. I heard back from managers at DNR Fisheries Division, who reported that Michigan DNR has been responding to the need for immediate action over in Illinois. Michigan DNR Fisheries has rounded up its total supply of rotenone (the chemical used to kill unwanted fish), several hundred gallons of it, and staged it at a central facility so it can be shipped to Illinois DNR. Michigan DNR has also offered use of two of its boats and crews to apply the chemical, as well as share DNR's experience with large-scale rotenone treatments. I am told that Illinois DNR is the agency taking the lead on this, along with logistic support from GLRC.

That's the short-term situation. Beyond that, it is encouraging to read GLRC's statements in support of restoring the physical/biological separation between the Chicago Sanitary/Shipping Canal and the Great Lakes as the only true solution to keeping more invasive species from entering there.

MWS Club has really gotten behind this issue. Hearing the voices from anglers who can speak first-hand about the economic and recreation value of Great Lakes fishing and boating will help keep the sense of urgency needed to get this job done. If we could somehow turn back the clock and have prevented the sea lamprey and zebra/quagga mussel from doing their damage to the Great Lakes, who would not want to do that? Great Lakes stakeholders have the chance now to keep the next big unwanted invasion out.

I'll let you know as I hear more.

Dan Keifer
MWS Conservation Committee Chair
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Balabon
To: Henry Nabors
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 8:50 AM
Subject: Fw: Advisor Update


FYI, see note number 1 about the Asian Carp issue. Rick B.

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Gaden <marc>
Sent: Tue, Nov 10, 2009 12:20 pm
Subject: Advisor Update


Canadian and U.S. Advisors:

Below is an update on several issues of interest to the committee.

1. Asian Carp Rapid Response: Asian carp are essentially at the location of the electrical dispersal barriers on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. They have also been detected in the Des Plaines River, which parallels the canal for about 10 miles before it peels away. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must turn off the new barrier (barrier IIa) for maintenance (this maintenance is not optional), leaving only the weaker, experimental barrier online (barrier I). Because the barrier will be deactivated for the maintenance, the State of Illinois, in partnership with the corps, the EPA, and many other agencies (including the commission) will undertake a rapid response measure on the canal, likely in early December. The rapid response will involve the use of rotenone, a piscicide, designed to drive the carp downstream several miles so that the barrier can be taken offline. Rotenone is not selective to carp, so there will be a large fish kill on the canal as a result of the treatment. Many state, provincial, and federal agencies (including the commission) provided funding, staff, and/or equipment so that this rotenone treatment can be carried out.

The rotenone treatment still does not address the short- and long-term issues associated with the canal. In the short-term, flooding between the Des Plaines River and the canal continues to be a threat. The corps is authorized to install necessary structures to mitigate the risk of fish transfers during a flooding event, and the commission has urged such installation to occur with all haste. Over the long-term, the only solution is to achieve biological separation, that is, to permanently ensure that biota cannot move between the Great Lakes and Mississippi watersheds. The corps is currently undertaking the study needed to determine how to achieve that separation, and the commission has urged that study be concluded and implemented as soon as possible.

2. Great Lakes Restoration Initiative/Sea Lamprey Funding: On October 30, President Obama signed legislation that funded the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, a $475 million infusion of funds to address some of the biggest problems facing the Great Lakes basin. The initiative is the vehicle through which much of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration will be funded. The collaboration was a massive, consensus-based effort to develop an action plan for the Great Lakes. Many of you participated in that exercise (the commission co-chaired the invasive species portion of the collaboration) and it is gratifying to see the funding emerge. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission is slated to receive funds under the initiative. The funds will be used to accelerate the pheromone project (use of sea lamprey pheromones as a control technique) and to undertake a telemetry project that will track the movement of sea lampreys and prey in an attempt to achieve better control. The base funding for the commission, through the State Department, has not yet been passed by Congress but both the House and the Senate bills include substantial increases for sea lamprey control, which is necessary for the commission to address some troubling sea lamprey “hot spots.” It is unclear at this point when Congress will wrap up the funding bill, but presumably before mid-December.

3. Lake Erie Sea Lamprey Abundances: As the commission has reported to Advisors for some time, sea lamprey numbers in Lake Erie have been on the rise. In response, starting in 2008, the commission embarked on a large-scale approach to Lake Erie to drive sea lamprey abundances to very low numbers. The plan has been to treat all sea lamprey producing streams in Lake Erie in 2008 and to again treat all streams in 2009. The expectation is that very few sea lampreys will be present in the lake after the back-to-back treatments and that sea lampreys will not return to all lamprey-producing streams. Data indicating the level of success of the 2008 treatments will not be available until 2010 (when the survivors of the 2008 treatments will have inflicted their damage on the fishery and are returning to spawn). Data for the entire experimental approach will not be available until 2011. In the mean time, today, we are measuring the abundances of sea lampreys present in the system before the large-scale approach started. Again, the commission was aware that sea lamprey abundances in Lake Erie were rising, which was the primary motivation behind the massive increase in effort on the lake. Advisors should be aware that forthcoming data about sea lamprey abundances in Lake Erie confirm that the population was rising substantially. Our expectation is that the 2008 and 2009 treatments—which were comprehensive—will lead to significantly lower sea lamprey abundances, though we will not have data until next year. If the large-scale approach, as tested in Lake Erie, proves to be successful, the commission will apply that approach to other lakes. The commission is already budgeting for that eventuality.

4. Ballast Standards: The discharge of species-laden ballast water from oceanic ships poses a tremendous threat to Canadian and U.S. waters, and Advisors have been vocal about the need to establish protective discharge standards—we cannot continue to allow invaders into the system. Legislation passed the House in April, 2008 that included ballast discharge standards 100 times stronger than the standards of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) treaty governing ballast water. The Senate was not able to move a ballast bill due to two primary sticking points—whether to use the Clean Water Act as the primary implementing legislation and whether to allow states to implement their own ballast laws. These issues were never resolved and, in fact, Congress has all but given up on passing ballast legislation, instead relying on the administration to promulgate ballast rules. In the Great Lakes basin, the individual states have taken action on ballast, further lessening the urgency for a federal response.

In August, 2009, the U.S. Coast guard proposed a two-phase ballast standard: (1) essentially, implementation of the IMO standard in the near term and (2) implementation of a permanent standard 1000 times more stringent than IMO. The second phase is similar to the standard included in the Senate legislation that was not debated during the 110th congress. The timelines for implementation in the Coast Guard’s proposed rule, however, are of concern—they are longer (in some cases, far longer) than the timelines proposed in 2008 legislation. Thus, while the standards appear to be better than expected, the timeless for implementation are worse. Interested parties have until December 4, 2009 to comment on the Coast Guard’s proposed rule. So far, some Great Lakes states and NGOs have commented on the proposed rule. The GLFC is expected to comment as well. The proposed rule is online at: http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bi ... n=retrieve (or, go to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/ and enter “ballast water and coast guard” into the 2009 (Volume 74) search line—the first document that comes up is the proposed rule). I urge all advisors to weigh in on this proposed rule.

5. Dick Reuss to be Named “Advisor Emeritus: For the first time in thirty years, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission has advisor vacancies from the State of Illinois. Dick Reuss, who was appointed advisor in 1980 after being nominated by then-governor Thompson, has retired from the committee. Mike Conlin, the agency advisor, also appointed that year, retired from state government in 2009. The other two advisors—also both appointed in 1980—are Ed Makauskas and Burt Atkinson, and they both continue to serve actively. (What a remarkable year class

Recognizing Dick’s exemplary commitment to the commission since 1980, and not wishing to let him leave the fold, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission has created the position “Advisor Emeritus” and asked Dick to serve in that capacity. Dick will join the commission for dinner in Chicago in early December, when this position will be offered. This is the only time in the commission’s history such a position has been created. Please join me in thanking Dick for his service on the committee and congratulating him on this new position!

6. Marc Gaden on Assignment for Six Weeks: I have taken a temporary assignment with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada, helping the Central and Arctic Region assess their Great Lakes and arctic programs, ahead of a large departmental review of the overall program. Thus, I will not be easily reached until around the holidays. If you have any issues you wish to discuss, please direct them to Chris Goddard (cgoddard@glfc.org).

I hope this update is helpful.

Marc

****************************************************
Marc Gaden, PhD
Communications Director and Legislative Liaison
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
2100 Commonwealth Blvd. Ste 100
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
734-662-3209 x. 14
marc@glfc.org
www.glfc.org
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.

Does this come in an audio version?
That's a LOT of reading.. lol

Thanks for the info,
B